Jump to content
Kaphias

Sarah Palin resigns as Alaska's governor

Recommended Posts

The way I see it, if she can't even finish her term as governer, she isn't qualified to run for the presidency. It shows she doesn't finish what she starts. She'll never get the support she needs if that's all that she shows us that she can do.

 

Regardless of whether she finished her term or not I'd be surprised if she decides to run for the presidency. She only looked bad while running for the VP spot and people certainly won't forget that.

 

 

 

There are many Republicans who love her though. I can see her as being a definite GOP candidate.


Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I see it, if she can't even finish her term as governer, she isn't qualified to run for the presidency. It shows she doesn't finish what she starts. She'll never get the support she needs if that's all that she shows us that she can do.

 

Regardless of whether she finished her term or not I'd be surprised if she decides to run for the presidency. She only looked bad while running for the VP spot and people certainly won't forget that.

 

 

 

There are many Republicans who love her though. I can see her as being a definite GOP candidate.

 

 

 

I don't see any reason she wouldn't run for president. Hopefully, someone much better shows up and she won't make it past the primaries.


awteno.jpg

Orthodoxy is unconciousness

the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She probably will run for president. She will get a lot of blind votes just because she is a woman, but probably not enough to win the presidency. If Obama does well in the next 3 1/2 years, or if someone else in the Republican party comes and challenges her, then she has little chance of actually winning the presidency.


Forum Updates & Suggestions <------ Let your voice be heard!
Forum Games <------- Coolest place on Tip.It
Tip.It Forum Rules <------- Read them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She probably will run for president. She will get a lot of blind votes just because she is a woman, but probably not enough to win the presidency. If Obama does well in the next 3 1/2 years, or if someone else in the Republican party comes and challenges her, then she has little chance of actually winning the presidency.

 

 

 

Agreed; Imagine how confused the black women that vote blindly will be :lol:


awteno.jpg

Orthodoxy is unconciousness

the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She probably will run for president. She will get a lot of blind votes just because she is a woman, but probably not enough to win the presidency. If Obama does well in the next 3 1/2 years, or if someone else in the Republican party comes and challenges her, then she has little chance of actually winning the presidency.

 

 

 

Agreed; Imagine how confused the black women that vote blindly will be :lol:

 

 

 

Heads is Obama. Tails is Palin. :roll:


Forum Updates & Suggestions <------ Let your voice be heard!
Forum Games <------- Coolest place on Tip.It
Tip.It Forum Rules <------- Read them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She probably will run for president. She will get a lot of blind votes just because she is a woman, but probably not enough to win the presidency. If Obama does well in the next 3 1/2 years, or if someone else in the Republican party comes and challenges her, then she has little chance of actually winning the presidency.

 

 

 

Agreed; Imagine how confused the black women that vote blindly will be :lol:

 

 

 

Heads is Obama. Tails is Palin. :roll:

 

 

 

I think it should be heads is palin just to be more confusing.


awteno.jpg

Orthodoxy is unconciousness

the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've learned that people don't actually dislike Palin on her merits, but rather because the media told them to dislike her. No. Seriously. I'd be willing to bet that 99.89% of people who don't live in Alaska couldn't describe anything she's done while in office (Without consulting Wikipedia!).

 

 

 

Give me a bad orator with sound policies over a smooth talker with unsound policies (See: Obama) any day of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've learned that people don't actually dislike Palin on her merits, but rather because the media told them to dislike her. No. Seriously. I'd be willing to bet that 99.89% of people who don't live in Alaska couldn't describe anything she's done while in office (Without consulting Wikipedia!).

 

 

 

Give me a bad orator with sound policies over a smooth talker with unsound policies (See: Obama) any day of the week.

 

 

 

Don't use the stupid corporate media thing as an excuse. While MSNBC was bashing her, Fox was hailing her as the Queen of Republicans. And it's not so much what she's done in Alaska, it's what she has said during the election.


Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont hate Palin, i just hate the idea of her running for president. i am sure she is a polite, honest women..


99 Fishing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've learned that people don't actually dislike Palin on her merits, but rather because the media told them to dislike her. No. Seriously. I'd be willing to bet that 99.89% of people who don't live in Alaska couldn't describe anything she's done while in office (Without consulting Wikipedia!).

 

 

 

Give me a bad orator with sound policies over a smooth talker with unsound policies (See: Obama) any day of the week.

 

 

 

I would say its more like 75% of people that hate her just hate her because she gives bad speeches.

 

 

 

In all honesty; shes just as bad as obama just in the exact opposite way policy wise.


awteno.jpg

Orthodoxy is unconciousness

the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people diss Obama because he's been sloppy in his first <200 days? It's just ignorant imo. Just because you don't judge a book by its cover doesn't mean you judge it by its title page.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do people diss Obama because he's been sloppy in his first <200 days? It's just ignorant imo. Just because you don't judge a book by its cover doesn't mean you judge it by its title page.

 

 

 

It's quite simple actually; he is clearly a highly intelligent person, and nothing has really gotten in the way to mess up his plans(economy was already bad, he was voted in to fix it). The stimulus and omnibus spending bills were both huge increases to the american debt, while its fairly obvious the economy isn't recovering any better then it would have been naturally. Secondly, he is planning a health care plan that he is trying to rush through; which is guarenteed to cause a poorly formed system. I don't really have any complaints against foreign policy; I wish he had acted a bit stronger on Iran the entire time especially once it became violent and I am rather tired of the apology tours but he hasn't done anything wrong per se. I wouldn't call it judging, if he starts doing an extremely good job then of course I will commend what he is doing.


awteno.jpg

Orthodoxy is unconciousness

the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've learned that people don't actually dislike Palin on her merits, but rather because the media told them to dislike her. No. Seriously. I'd be willing to bet that 99.89% of people who don't live in Alaska couldn't describe anything she's done while in office (Without consulting Wikipedia!).

 

 

 

Give me a bad orator with sound policies over a smooth talker with unsound policies (See: Obama) any day of the week.

 

 

 

Maybe because she hasn't done anything? Who the hell knows what goes on in specific policies state by state by the governor? I barely know what my governor does, but I pay attention to policies I care about when they're around the corner.

 

 

 

What I do know that she did while serving in Alaska was poorly manage a budget, she made women pay for their own rape kits, she's a religious zealot who doesn't believe in science or evolution and openly mocks drosophila research, and she was very unpopular in her Congress from both the Republicans and Democrats.

 

 

 

And that's just going by what happened in Alaska.

 

 

 

Are you seriously THAT delusional, Sly? Are you that dense to just blame "the media," when the media is so far to the right and in corporate hands? And what unsound policies are you talking about? Because I could name a bunch, ones that you'd be cheering on as wonderful. You know, like the idea of indefinite detention without charge or trial, warrantless wiretapping, eavesdropping on your emails (and this is not paranoia, as there have been reports and reports of the government "abusing" their already abusive policy), drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not repealing all of the anti-gay legislation like DADT and DOMA, etc.

 

 

 

I'm sure you'll cite the stimulus package when most economists supported one (and most thought it was too small), climate change because you probably don't believe in it as you don't believe in evolution, universal health care even though it's cheaper and brings down health care costs (which are the real threat to the American deficit) and the fact that he's not bombing Iran by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy.

 

 

 

Maybe because she hasn't done anything? Who the hell knows what goes on in specific policies state by state by the governor? I barely know what my governor does, but I pay attention to policies I care about when they're around the corner.

 

 

 

So, in other words, you don't know anything about her because you only care to know what suits you to know. Not surprising, really. At all.

 

 

 

What I do know that she did while serving in Alaska was poorly manage a budget...

 

 

 

Oh, boy. This I just HAVE to see you substantiate, though I guarantee you that you're going to link me to something on the Huffington Post or the like. But, go ahead and amuse me.

 

 

 

...she made women pay for their own rape kits...

 

 

 

Okay ummm... Wow. No. Just no.

 

 

 

A.) Just to set the record straight, women weren't charged for their "rape kits". Their insurance companies were billed for the cost of FORENSIC TESTS (You know? To catch the rapist?), which usually got passed along to the woman in the form of premiums.

 

 

 

The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur.

 

 

 

Source

 

 

 

B.) Wassalia wasn't the only town in Alaska to follow this practice. It was practice in most small towns-- And has been practiced before Palin became mayor-- As it was done in order to offset the costs involved in conducting a test and prevent those costs from being passed on to taxpayers.

 

 

 

C.) Palin never, not once, argued against a 2000 piece of legislation which banned the practice.

 

 

 

Therefore, your contention is rather odd.

 

 

 

Get it? Got it? Good.

 

 

 

...she's a religious zealot who doesn't believe in science or evolution...

 

 

 

Ummm... No. I don't even see the point of doing this, but if you're just going to spout nonsense, then I will.

 

 

 

PALIN: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

 

 

 

You can read the rest of it here.

 

 

 

Hardly the "religious zealot" you make her out to be.

 

 

 

...and openly mocks drosophila research...

 

 

 

This is a nice spin. The comment, no matter how vague, in question had to do with a species of Bactrocera that is an agricultural pest rather than one used for biomedical research.

 

 

 

Link

 

 

 

...and she was very unpopular in her Congress from both the Republicans and Democrats.

 

 

 

Ummm... No. This is why I wonder where people get their information sometimes.

 

 

 

And that's just going by what happened in Alaska.

 

 

 

Yeah... No.

 

 

 

Are you seriously THAT delusional, Sly? Are you that dense to just blame "the media," when the media is so far to the right and in corporate hands?

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

Ummm... Yeah. Right. Of the major media outlets in the U.S. (Which are supposedly in "corporate hands"), FOX is the only one who leans to the right. MSNBC leans way to the right and CNN slightly less to the right, but still to the right nevertheless. I don't know what kind of world you live in, but can I live in it as well?

 

 

 

And what unsound policies are you talking about? Because I could name a bunch, ones that you'd be cheering on as wonderful.

 

 

 

Oh, this'll be fun.

 

 

 

You know, like the idea of indefinite detention without charge or trial...

 

 

 

Would you rather a sham of a trial, such as the one Saddam got or the ones conducted at Nuremberg? Or, better yet, let's just release them, where it's estimated that everyone one in seven former detainees return to terrorist cells.

 

 

 

...warrantless wiretapping, eavesdropping on your emails (and this is not paranoia, as there have been reports and reports of the government "abusing" their already abusive policy)...

 

 

 

I didn't know I supported those. Boy, my memory must be failing me in my old age.

 

 

 

...drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan...

 

 

 

Which are unsound, why? Would you rather send in ground forces?

 

 

 

...not repealing all of the anti-gay legislation like DADT and DOMA, etc.

 

 

 

1.) DADT doesn't need to be repealed. The only thing which needs to be reworked is the way it's carried out.

 

 

 

2.) Okay. I'll bite. Explain to me how DOMA is "anti-gay legislation".

 

 

 

I'm sure you'll cite the stimulus package when most economists supported one (and most thought it was too small)...

 

 

 

What's this? An appeal to authority? I can do that too and produce a list of economists who argued against the stimulus package, seeing as how it's going to ultimately add $9.3T ($9,300,000,000,000) to the national debt, of which no generation within the next hundred years, at least, will be able to pay off. How do you get yourself out of debt? By more than quintupling the national debt, of course!

 

 

 

...Oh, no, wait.

 

 

 

...climate change because you probably don't believe in it as you don't believe in evolution...

 

 

 

First and foremost, lol @ linking climate change to evolution and baseless assumptions.

 

 

 

But, moving on, you obviously know very little about anything other than "Obama said it's a good thing, therefore it must be a good thing!". Not only is cap and trade a FRAUD-- It raises the price of energy, most notably electricity and gas, in hopes of causing consumers to use less, when in actually it drives down GDP as both consumers and businesses cut back and spend less to compensate for higher energy prices-- But the Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill won't do jack crap to effect climate change. At all. Why? Because, contrary to popular belief, only about .04% of the earth's atmosphere is comprised of carbon dioxide, which accounts for anywhere between 9% - 26% towards the greenhouse effect (Greenhouse gases are considered to be nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, methane and PFC's/HFC's/SF's, excluding water vapor. Carbon dioxide comprises about 80% of all greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by humans. Furthermore, iirc, approximately 3.4% of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by human activity, but don't quote me on that one). The U.S. is responsible for something like 20% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by humans. Assuming a linear correlation, one could say that the U.S. contributes between 1.8% and 5.2% to the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide wise. Even though the U.S. will contribute less to total carbon dioxide emission by 2020, we'll just assume that it continues to emit 20% of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans. A 17% reduction would thereby means that the U.S.'s contribution to the greenhouse gas effect, carbon wise, would be between 1.494% and 4.316%, which correlate to something like a 0.01% increase in worldwide temperatures, if that.

 

 

 

But, hey, continue drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

 

 

...universal health care even though it's cheaper and brings down health care costs (which are the real threat to the American deficit)...

 

 

 

UHC is not inherently cheaper. It's "cheaper" for the poor who get more proverbial bang for their buck, and "more expensive" for the rich who get less bang for their buck. And the real threat to the deficit is out of control government spending and pork funding (I'm looking at the Dems).

 

 

 

...and the fact that he's not bombing Iran by now.

 

 

 

No, just Pakistan #-o

 

 

 

Anyway, are you done now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, in other words, you don't know anything about her because you only care to know what suits you to know. Not surprising, really. At all.

 

 

 

I know plenty about her. Where did you get that inference from? I said I don't know what she specifically got done in her office, and stated that perhaps it's because she has literally done nothing.

 

 

 

I mean, when people outside your office put up a clock that's counting down the time until you leave, I think that says a lot about you.

 

 

 

The "Time to Make a Difference" clock that counted the time left in Palin's term was taken down from the wall outside her office.

 

 

 

http://newsminer.com/news/2009/jul/06/p ... g-her-out/

 

 

 

Practically every newspaper in the state said, "Bye, and don't let the door hit you on the way out!"

 

 

 

Oh, boy. This I just HAVE to see you substantiate, though I guarantee you that you're going to link me to something on the Huffington Post or the like. But, go ahead and amuse me.

 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politics/2008/ ... udget.html

 

 

 

And I was talking about her slashes to teenage mothers and special needs children. Just the irony in how she parades her children around like props to show what a good mother she is, and then slashes help for those who need it most.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.) Just to set the record straight, women weren't charged for their "rape kits". Their insurance companies were billed for the cost of FORENSIC TESTS (You know? To catch the rapist?), which usually got passed along to the woman in the form of premiums.

 

 

 

The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur.

 

 

 

Source

 

 

 

B.) Wassalia wasn't the only town in Alaska to follow this practice. It was practice in most small towns-- And has been practiced before Palin became mayor-- As it was done in order to offset the costs involved in conducting a test and prevent those costs from being passed on to taxpayers.

 

 

 

C.) Palin never, not once, argued against a 2000 piece of legislation which banned the practice.

 

 

 

 

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136

 

 

 

Fail more. She changed the cost from the police departments to the women themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PALIN: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

 

 

 

You can read the rest of it here.

 

 

 

Hardly the "religious zealot" you make her out to be.

 

 

 

Exactly like I said: she's a religious zealot. Anyone arguing for "teach both" is a religious zealot who doesn't believe in science.

 

 

 

 

This is a nice spin. The comment, no matter how vague, in question had to do with a species of Bactrocera that is an agricultural pest rather than one used for biomedical research.

 

Link

 

 

 

Lol, your link really doesn't prove that at all. All it does is say, "what if she was talking about this..."

 

 

 

No matter which she was talking about, it's pure ignorance and stupidity.

 

 

 

Ummm... No. This is why I wonder where people get their information sometimes.

 

 

 

No?

 

 

 

Then why all of the emails among Republican strategists and lawmakers in Alaska who are unhappy with her?

 

 

 

 

 

Ummm... Yeah. Right. Of the major media outlets in the U.S. (Which are supposedly in "corporate hands"), FOX is the only one who leans to the right. MSNBC leans way to the right and CNN slightly less to the right, but still to the right nevertheless. I don't know what kind of world you live in, but can I live in it as well?

 

 

 

FOX News isn't news, though. It's just a circus that lies. It's also owned by the corporate media conglomerate, News Corporation by Rupert Murdoch.

 

 

 

CNN is owned by Time Warner, and is fairly right wing.

 

 

 

MSNBC is owned by NBC Universal, another entertainment company. MSNBC is pretty bad, too, unless Rachel Maddow is on. Olbermann is just an annoying blow hard.

 

 

 

None of these major news outlets are actual news companies, they're entertainment companies.

 

 

 

Name some left wing personalities on these networks. I can name you two: Maddow and Olbermann.

 

 

 

Would you rather a sham of a trial, such as the one Saddam got or the ones conducted at Nuremberg? Or, better yet, let's just release them, where it's estimated that everyone one in seven former detainees return to terrorist cells.

 

 

 

What we're getting are "show trials," which are trials conducted when one knows the person is guilty, yet doesn't conduct trials for people who can't be convicted with 100% certainty. That's not how the justice system works, sorry, and it's absolutely tyrannical to hold people indefinitely without a trial or charge.

 

 

 

Yes, if you can't charge them or convict them of anything, release them. "Swearing allegiance to Bin Laden" doesn't cut it.

 

 

 

And your "one in seven" is a falsehood, and even if it weren't, I don't care. Justice is justice:

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... york-times

 

 

 

I didn't know I supported those. Boy, my memory must be failing me in my old age.

 

 

 

Fair enough, it's just characteristic of warmongering nationalists.

 

 

 

Which are unsound, why? Would you rather send in ground forces?

 

 

 

Because you create more terrorists. Killing them isn't the answer. Building infrastructure, schools and hospitals is.

 

 

 

1.) DADT doesn't need to be repealed. The only thing which needs to be reworked is the way it's carried out.

 

 

 

How else can it be carried out? "Oh, you admitted you're gay but you don't have to be discharged even though that's what the law says."

 

 

 

And please, it's discriminatory by nature, and it hurts their ability to serve in the military.

 

 

 

2.) Okay. I'll bite. Explain to me how DOMA is "anti-gay legislation".

 

 

 

Because homosexual state marriages aren't recognized by the federal government which is discriminatory against gays? Not to mention it's not Constitutional.

 

 

 

What's this? An appeal to authority?

 

 

 

No, that's actually NOT an appeal to authority. Is it an appeal to authority to cite scientific knowledge? No. We can't all be experts on everything.

 

 

 

An argument from authority would be, "Paul Krugman says this, and because Paul Krugman said it, it must be true."

 

 

 

That's not what I did.

 

 

 

I can do that too and produce a list of economists who argued against the stimulus package

 

 

 

So can I. Most of them are found here:

 

 

 

http://mises.org/

 

 

 

You know, the school of economics that's not bound in reality, but philosophy.

 

 

 

$9.3T ($9,300,000,000,000) to the national debt

 

 

 

No it's not.

 

 

 

.First and foremost, lol @ linking climate change to evolution and baseless assumptions.

 

 

 

It's not baseless, you don't believe in evolution and have stated so on many occasion.

 

 

 

Erm, no, this has nothing to do with Obama. I've long supported Cap and Trade because it's a good system to reduce emissions. Just look at the 1990's emissions trading that was done with Sulfur. It reduced emissions by 50% in 17 years. It also reduced the environmental cost of dealing with the SO2 emissions by 80%.

 

 

 

Not only is cap and trade a FRAUD

 

 

 

How so?

 

 

 

It raises the price of energy, most notably electricity and gas, in hopes of causing consumers to use less, when in actually it drives down GDP as both consumers and businesses cut back and spend less to compensate for higher energy prices

 

 

 

Oh no! The horror of the GDP reduction!:

 

 

 

waxman-markey-and-gdp-1.png

 

 

 

In 2050, GDP without Waxman-Markey is projected to be $35,377,000,000,000. GDP with Waxman-Markey is projected to be $34,918,000,000,000.

 

 

 

Why? Because, contrary to popular belief, only about .04% of the earth's atmosphere is comprised of carbon dioxide, which accounts for anywhere between 9% - 26% towards the greenhouse effect (Greenhouse gases are considered to be nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, methane and PFC's/HFC's/SF's, excluding water vapor.

 

 

 

I don't know what the composition of the Earth's atmosphere of only 0.04% has to do with not affecting climate change, but 385 parts per million of CO2 is what we're currently looking at. It is irreversible if CO2 goes above 450 ppm, which it undoubtedly will, and Steve Chu thinks we'll be lucky if we max at 550 ppm.

 

 

 

Carbon dioxide comprises about 80% of all greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by humans. Furthermore, iirc, approximately 3.4% of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by human activity, but don't quote me on that one). The U.S. is responsible for something like 20% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by humans. Assuming a linear correlation, one could say that the U.S. contributes between 1.8% and 5.2% to the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide wise. Even though the U.S. will contribute less to total carbon dioxide emission by 2020, we'll just assume that it continues to emit 20% of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans. A 17% reduction would thereby means that the U.S.'s contribution to the greenhouse gas effect, carbon wise, would be between 1.494% and 4.316%, which correlate to something like a 0.01% increase in worldwide temperatures, if that.

 

 

 

This is all nonsense from the Heritage Foundation lol. I'm sick and tired of hearing that "0.01%" number.

 

 

 

UHC is not inherently cheaper.

 

 

 

Yes it is. By every stretch of the imagination, it's cheaper. It's cheaper per capita, it's cheaper as a percentage of GDP, it's cheaper in physical dollars spent.

 

 

 

And the real threat to the deficit is out of control government spending and pork funding (I'm looking at the Dems).

 

 

 

Lol, pork accounts for 1% of the budget. Yes, that spending is just out of control.

 

 

 

It couldn't POSSIBLY be Medicare and Medicaid, with health care costs rising at 10% in 2009 from 2008! Nah, couldn't possibly be the case...

 

 

 

No, just Pakistan #-o

 

 

 

Yeah, let's just bomb the [bleep] out of innocent civilians and create more terrorists! Sounds like "sound" policy to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[hide=]

Oh boy.

 

 

 

Maybe because she hasn't done anything? Who the hell knows what goes on in specific policies state by state by the governor? I barely know what my governor does, but I pay attention to policies I care about when they're around the corner.

 

 

 

So, in other words, you don't know anything about her because you only care to know what suits you to know. Not surprising, really. At all.

 

 

 

What I do know that she did while serving in Alaska was poorly manage a budget...

 

 

 

Oh, boy. This I just HAVE to see you substantiate, though I guarantee you that you're going to link me to something on the Huffington Post or the like. But, go ahead and amuse me.

 

 

 

...she made women pay for their own rape kits...

 

 

 

Okay ummm... Wow. No. Just no.

 

 

 

A.) Just to set the record straight, women weren't charged for their "rape kits". Their insurance companies were billed for the cost of FORENSIC TESTS (You know? To catch the rapist?), which usually got passed along to the woman in the form of premiums.

 

 

 

The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur.

 

 

 

Source

 

 

 

B.) Wassalia wasn't the only town in Alaska to follow this practice. It was practice in most small towns-- And has been practiced before Palin became mayor-- As it was done in order to offset the costs involved in conducting a test and prevent those costs from being passed on to taxpayers.

 

 

 

C.) Palin never, not once, argued against a 2000 piece of legislation which banned the practice.

 

 

 

Therefore, your contention is rather odd.

 

 

 

Get it? Got it? Good.

 

 

 

...she's a religious zealot who doesn't believe in science or evolution...

 

 

 

Ummm... No. I don't even see the point of doing this, but if you're just going to spout nonsense, then I will.

 

 

 

PALIN: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

 

 

 

You can read the rest of it here.

 

 

 

Hardly the "religious zealot" you make her out to be.

 

 

 

...and openly mocks drosophila research...

 

 

 

This is a nice spin. The comment, no matter how vague, in question had to do with a species of Bactrocera that is an agricultural pest rather than one used for biomedical research.

 

 

 

Link

 

 

 

...and she was very unpopular in her Congress from both the Republicans and Democrats.

 

 

 

Ummm... No. This is why I wonder where people get their information sometimes.

 

 

 

And that's just going by what happened in Alaska.

 

 

 

Yeah... No.

 

 

 

Are you seriously THAT delusional, Sly? Are you that dense to just blame "the media," when the media is so far to the right and in corporate hands?

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

Ummm... Yeah. Right. Of the major media outlets in the U.S. (Which are supposedly in "corporate hands"), FOX is the only one who leans to the right. MSNBC leans way to the right and CNN slightly less to the right, but still to the right nevertheless. I don't know what kind of world you live in, but can I live in it as well?

 

 

 

And what unsound policies are you talking about? Because I could name a bunch, ones that you'd be cheering on as wonderful.

 

 

 

Oh, this'll be fun.

 

 

 

You know, like the idea of indefinite detention without charge or trial...

 

 

 

Would you rather a sham of a trial, such as the one Saddam got or the ones conducted at Nuremberg? Or, better yet, let's just release them, where it's estimated that everyone one in seven former detainees return to terrorist cells.

 

 

 

...warrantless wiretapping, eavesdropping on your emails (and this is not paranoia, as there have been reports and reports of the government "abusing" their already abusive policy)...

 

 

 

I didn't know I supported those. Boy, my memory must be failing me in my old age.

 

 

 

...drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan...

 

 

 

Which are unsound, why? Would you rather send in ground forces?

 

 

 

...not repealing all of the anti-gay legislation like DADT and DOMA, etc.

 

 

 

1.) DADT doesn't need to be repealed. The only thing which needs to be reworked is the way it's carried out.

 

 

 

2.) Okay. I'll bite. Explain to me how DOMA is "anti-gay legislation".

 

 

 

I'm sure you'll cite the stimulus package when most economists supported one (and most thought it was too small)...

 

 

 

What's this? An appeal to authority? I can do that too and produce a list of economists who argued against the stimulus package, seeing as how it's going to ultimately add $9.3T ($9,300,000,000,000) to the national debt, of which no generation within the next hundred years, at least, will be able to pay off. How do you get yourself out of debt? By more than quintupling the national debt, of course!

 

 

 

...Oh, no, wait.

 

 

 

...climate change because you probably don't believe in it as you don't believe in evolution...

 

 

 

First and foremost, lol @ linking climate change to evolution and baseless assumptions.

 

 

 

But, moving on, you obviously know very little about anything other than "Obama said it's a good thing, therefore it must be a good thing!". Not only is cap and trade a FRAUD-- It raises the price of energy, most notably electricity and gas, in hopes of causing consumers to use less, when in actually it drives down GDP as both consumers and businesses cut back and spend less to compensate for higher energy prices-- But the Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill won't do jack crap to effect climate change. At all. Why? Because, contrary to popular belief, only about .04% of the earth's atmosphere is comprised of carbon dioxide, which accounts for anywhere between 9% - 26% towards the greenhouse effect (Greenhouse gases are considered to be nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, methane and PFC's/HFC's/SF's, excluding water vapor. Carbon dioxide comprises about 80% of all greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by humans. Furthermore, iirc, approximately 3.4% of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by human activity, but don't quote me on that one). The U.S. is responsible for something like 20% of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by humans. Assuming a linear correlation, one could say that the U.S. contributes between 1.8% and 5.2% to the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide wise. Even though the U.S. will contribute less to total carbon dioxide emission by 2020, we'll just assume that it continues to emit 20% of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans. A 17% reduction would thereby means that the U.S.'s contribution to the greenhouse gas effect, carbon wise, would be between 1.494% and 4.316%, which correlate to something like a 0.01% increase in worldwide temperatures, if that.

 

 

 

But, hey, continue drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

 

 

...universal health care even though it's cheaper and brings down health care costs (which are the real threat to the American deficit)...

 

 

 

UHC is not inherently cheaper. It's "cheaper" for the poor who get more proverbial bang for their buck, and "more expensive" for the rich who get less bang for their buck. And the real threat to the deficit is out of control government spending and pork funding (I'm looking at the Dems).

 

 

 

...and the fact that he's not bombing Iran by now.

 

 

 

No, just Pakistan #-o

 

 

 

Anyway, are you done now?

[/hide]

 

 

 

Your awesome sly

 

 

 

but; you mistyped the news bias; it should say fox is right wing msnbc is left and cnn is left.

 

 

Exactly like I said: she's a religious zealot. Anyone arguing for "teach both" is a religious zealot who doesn't believe in science.

 

 

 

What, dont you trust your science to stand up to debate?

 

 

 

Because you create more terrorists. Killing them isn't the answer. Building infrastructure, schools and hospitals is.

 

 

 

This is relevant to the use of drones in military operations how?

 

 

 

Because homosexual state marriages aren't recognized by the federal government which is discriminatory against gays? Not to mention it's not Constitutional.

 

 

 

The federal government doesn't have the right to recognize marriages anyway. Though I agree they shouldn't be discriminating.

 

 

 

It's not baseless, you don't believe in evolution and have stated so on many occasion.

 

 

 

Erm, no, this has nothing to do with Obama. I've long supported Cap and Trade because it's a good system to reduce emissions. Just look at the 1990's emissions trading that was done with Sulfur. It reduced emissions by 50% in 17 years. It also reduced the environmental cost of dealing with the SO2 emissions by 80%

.

 

 

 

Evolution is related to climate change how?

 

 

 

Cap and Trade sounds good in theory. The problem is that manufacturing will shift to China and India where there is less regulation resulting in more emmisions world wide. I desperately hate how that sounds like a quote of republican talking points, but in this case its entirely true.

 

 

 

I don't know what the composition of the Earth's atmosphere of only 0.04% has to do with not affecting climate change, but 385 parts per million of CO2 is what we're currently looking at. It is irreversible if CO2 goes above 450 ppm, which it undoubtedly will, and Steve Chu thinks we'll be lucky if we max at 550 ppm.

 

 

 

Hmm, irreversible; that sounds oddly like fear mongering. Let me guess if the CO2 goes about 450 it reaches critical mass and godzilla attacks right?

 

 

Yes it is. By every stretch of the imagination, it's cheaper. It's cheaper per capita, it's cheaper as a percentage of GDP, it's cheaper in physical dollars spent.

 

 

 

Of course its cheaper if you force pharmacutical companies and doctors to take a cut in pay.


awteno.jpg

Orthodoxy is unconciousness

the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly like I said: she's a religious zealot. Anyone arguing for "teach both" is a religious zealot who doesn't believe in science.

 

I wasn't going to get into the middle of this pointless argument, but I take offense to that statement. Because a person believes in God, it makes them an extremist who doesn't believe in science? Are you completely block-headed? Why can't a person take a two-sided approach? It's possible to believe in God AND science. Saying "teach both" does not make her a zealot. In fact it makes her just the opposite, a moderate- someone who can see both sides and compromise. In fact, what you said makes YOU a zealot. THINK next time you make statements like that and make yourself look like a bigot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What, dont you trust your science to stand up to debate?

 

 

 

I don't appreciate religion being taught in science class, nor do I appreciate religion being masked as science. I also don't like when people lie in order to "teach both" by acting as if there's still a debate about this.

 

 

 

Why don't we teach about the flat earth in science as a credible theory as if there's a debate? Why don't we teach that the Earth is the center of the universe, as if there's still a debate? Why are we only limiting this to evolution?

 

 

 

Btw, which creationism story do we teach?

 

 

 

This is relevant to the use of drones in military operations how?

 

 

 

*sigh* Ok. When a drone attacks a terrorist site, there's sometimes civilians in the area. Almost always as a matter of fact. If you kill 1 terrorist with the drone attack, and you kill 20 civilians in the same strike...you just created at minimum 3 more terrorists. It's counterproductive. Just imagine if you were starved for an education, food and water that was promised to you over 20 years ago by Ronald Reagan and George Bush I and it hasn't been delivered yet, people invade your country, start killing your peers and fellow civilians in the name of freedom, and then you're not even being helped with infrastructure? You're going to be radicalized. It's needless. Thankfully, Obama sees this and has ordered McCrystal to have way less drone attacks and only use them if they're absolutely needed and if there's no civilians in the vicinity. Of course this won't happen every time, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

 

 

The federal government doesn't have the right to recognize marriages anyway.

 

 

 

It doesn't? So then all those heterosexual couples being recognized by the federal government are being recognized illegally? All of those federal benefits they receive are being given out with no authority?

 

 

 

Evolution is related to climate change how?

 

 

 

He doesn't believe in evolution, so it would only make sense that he wouldn't believe in climate change either, because most of our evidence comes from ice core samples and things aged older than 6,000 years.

 

 

 

The problem is that manufacturing will shift to China and India where there is less regulation resulting in more emmisions world wide. I desperately hate how that sounds like a quote of republican talking points, but in this case its entirely true.

 

 

 

Not happening in Europe, so I have no reason to believe this would happen with the United States. Moreover, being the "leader" of the world and issuing climate change sends messages to other countries.

 

 

 

For example, just today:

 

 

 

Australias emissions trading laws look more likely to pass a hostile Senate after U.S. Congressional support for a similar climate bill eroded political opposition in Australia to carbon trading.

 

 

 

http://planetark.org/wen/53618

 

 

 

This was exactly the idea behind trying to pass it in the House, even if it will fail in the Senate (which it probably will).

 

 

 

mm, irreversible; that sounds oddly like fear mongering. Let me guess if the CO2 goes about 450 it reaches critical mass and godzilla attacks right?

 

 

 

No, the effects cannot be reversed and instead we'll be forced to deal with what we're dished out, rather than reversing the trends. We'll just have to cope with less food supply, droughts and problems in irrigation.

 

 

 

I'm not too concerned about the Greenland ice sheet melting and "putting Florida underwater," as most climate scientists agree that this will not happen for another 1,000 years. However, something to keep in mind is that those estimates are using our current output rate. If the permafrost in Russia melts, all of that methane will be released and exacerbate the problem severely.

 

 

 

Of course its cheaper if you force pharmacutical companies and doctors to take a cut in pay

 

 

 

Erm....no? Their pay really has nothing to do with it. It's about incentives. Our health care costs are out of control because of people being over-tested and the lack of preventive care for diabetes and heart diseases. The over-testing occurs because people are going to the hospital for something that should be taken care of at a normal practitioner. You are paying for the uninsured without even realizing it.

 

 

 

Because a person believes in God, it makes them an extremist who doesn't believe in science?

 

 

 

No, someone believing in God is just irrational about that particular aspect of life. Of course we're all irrational about something, so it's not necessarily a bad thing. Anyway, the problem isn't a belief in God, it's portraying religion in science class as science.

 

 

 

Are you completely block-headed?

 

 

 

Are you?

 

 

 

Why can't a person take a two-sided approach?

 

 

 

They can. Who said they can't? Arguing that we should teach about God in science isn't taking a "two-sided approach," w/e that means. It's teaching religion in science class and purposefully confuses children.

 

 

 

It's possible to believe in God AND science.

 

 

 

Yep, never said it wasn't.

 

 

 

Saying "teach both" does not make her a zealot.

 

 

 

Yes it does because it shows she doesn't believe in evolution, as every advocate of the "teach both" is trying to infiltrate the school system with religion.

 

 

 

In fact it makes her just the opposite, a moderate- someone who can see both sides and compromise.

 

 

 

No matter what South Park told you, the middle is not the ideal position. When one preaches peace and the other genocide, moderation isn't a virtue.

 

 

 

In fact, what you said makes YOU a zealot. THINK next time you make statements like that and make yourself look like a bigot.

 

 

 

Yeah, damn my "bigotry" against religious zealots trying to get religion in the public school system and act as if there's a controversy about evolution! Damn me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'll always remember about her time in office was when one of our state senators left to work with Obama. The senate dems nominated a new person, she rejected him and nominated her own. Senate dems rejected, they gave her multiple nominations. She rejected, and put up the same person. It went back and forth until she finally accepted a nominee. Was a very childish game on her part, and a violation of the Senate appointment process.

 

 

 

I can't wait for 2010.


Salamoniesunsetsig5.png

8,325th to 99 Firemaking 3/9/08 | 44,811th to 99 Cooking 7/16/08

4,968th to 99 Farming 10/9/09 | Runescaper August 2005-March 2010

Tip.it Mod Feb. 2008-Sep. 2008 | Tip.it Crew Sep. 2008-Nov. 2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it does because it shows she doesn't believe in evolution, as every advocate of the "teach both" is trying to infiltrate the school system with religion.

 

 

 

This speaks for itself.

 

 

 

Your snappy one-liners, out of context "not always" arguments aren't worth my time and now I really do believe you are a bigot. If you can't accept that not every religious person is some kind of insurgent trying to infuse children's' minds with their beliefs and enslave them in a mindless cult, then fine. Have fun picking this apart and shrugging it off with sarcastic remarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it does because it shows she doesn't believe in evolution, as every advocate of the "teach both" is trying to infiltrate the school system with religion.

 

 

 

This speaks for itself.

 

 

 

Your snappy one-liners, out of context "not always" arguments aren't worth my time and now I really do believe you are a bigot. If you can't accept that not every religious person is some kind of insurgent trying to infuse children's' minds with their beliefs and enslave them in a mindless cult, then fine. Have fun picking this apart and shrugging it off with sarcastic remarks.

 

But really, there is no reason to teach intelligent design in a science class other than to teach religion. It isn't science. So anybody advocating the "teach both" approach is simply trying to get religion into schools.


whalenuke.png

Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

angel2w.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it does because it shows she doesn't believe in evolution, as every advocate of the "teach both" is trying to infiltrate the school system with religion.

 

 

 

This speaks for itself.

 

 

 

Your snappy one-liners, out of context "not always" arguments aren't worth my time and now I really do believe you are a bigot. If you can't accept that not every religious person is some kind of insurgent trying to infuse children's' minds with their beliefs and enslave them in a mindless cult, then fine. Have fun picking this apart and shrugging it off with sarcastic remarks.

 

But really, there is no reason to teach intelligent design in a science class other than to teach religion. It isn't science. So anybody advocating the "teach both" approach is simply trying to get religion into schools.

 

Exactly. However I think that some sort of religious education or religious history class should be available in schools, allowing people who want to to learn about both. It doesn't belong in a science classroom though, simply because it isn't science.

 

 

 

How exactly do you teach both though? "Over time we changed from tiny single celled organisms into what we are now. But in the beginning god created us exactly as we are now in his image." I'd imagine some kids would get confused by the blatant contradictions.

 

 

 

That just made me think of something, maybe the whole God created us in his likeness thing could be true. Maybe god is a giant single celled organism :lol:


15cbz0y.jpg
[bleep] the law, they can eat my dick that's word to Pimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it does because it shows she doesn't believe in evolution, as every advocate of the "teach both" is trying to infiltrate the school system with religion.

 

 

 

This speaks for itself.

 

 

 

Your snappy one-liners, out of context "not always" arguments aren't worth my time and now I really do believe you are a bigot. If you can't accept that not every religious person is some kind of insurgent trying to infuse children's' minds with their beliefs and enslave them in a mindless cult, then fine. Have fun picking this apart and shrugging it off with sarcastic remarks.

 

But really, there is no reason to teach intelligent design in a science class other than to teach religion. It isn't science. So anybody advocating the "teach both" approach is simply trying to get religion into schools.

 

 

 

Here's the original quote which I'm referencing:

 

PALIN: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. "Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."

 

 

 

"But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."- This is what I'm arguing for. Creationism really shouldn't be taught in public schools because of separation of church and state, not to mention different religions. And no it's not science. But completely blocking it out and banning any kind of discussion of it in schools is stupid. Why should teachers be suspended and fired for referencing it? Why should kids be suspended for praying at school activities (personal experience)? They shouldn't. Tolerance is what I was arguing for. And saying anyone who says to present both sides is some kind of radical who is trying to corrupt children is way off base. If that's their belief, let them have it; they are allowed to have have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."- This is what I'm arguing for.

 

 

 

Why should we let kids debate both sides in science class? What purpose does that serve? How do you teach it? Most importantly, which creationism story do you teach?

 

 

 

Creationism really shouldn't be taught in public schools because of separation of church and state, not to mention different religions. And no it's not science. But completely blocking it out and banning any kind of discussion of it in schools is stupid.

 

 

 

Why is it stupid? It doesn't belong in science class, so why should it be brought up? It makes absolutely no sense. The only reason they want to teach both is to create a false controversy about evolution and to confuse children.

 

 

 

It's exactly why idiots still deny global warming. We have people saying, "Well, there's a lot of experts who don't believe in global warming, or that it's caused by humans even if it's happening." They use the same tactics that have been used for eons with evolution.

 

 

 

There were other areas where this happened as well. The big tobacco companies hired a guy to present a false controversy with "experts" to deny the link between cancer and cigarettes. This same institute (the George C. Marshal Institute) tried to bring up a "list of scientists and experts"--as if science is about whose list is the biggest--supporting Ronald Reagan's missile defense initiative. Most physicists said it was bogus, but they created a false controversy with "experts" to make it sound plausible.

 

 

 

And what do you know, the same group involved in that is currently involved in global warming denial. The same group that denied the link between tobacco and cancer, the same group that got "physicists" to say what a great idea the missile defense initiative was, is the same group (led by the same person) that has led the biggest crusade against global warming and its facts.

 

 

 

These strategies were being used and have been used with evolution. This is why the "teach both" is so dangerous. It creates a false controversy, confuses children and the general public, and now we have illiterate morons who know nothing about the facts of science. Of course it goes both ways at times (rarely), Al Gore sensationalized a lot of the science and didn't explain things too well with his "Inconvenient Truth, but it's almost always with denialists that this is popular. It's not like Gore lied about the bulk of the information, either, just exaggerated things (like my earlier example with the Greenland ice sheets).

 

 

 

Why should teachers be suspended and fired for referencing it?

 

 

 

They don't. They get suspended for teaching it as credible science. Just the other day (months?) I saw a history teacher mock it and call it "superstitiuous nonsense" when the child brought it up. He got in trouble, as a matter of fact, not by the school, but by the courts.

 

 

 

http://www.topix.com/us/politics/2009/0 ... nts-rights

 

 

 

Why should kids be suspended for praying at school activities (personal experience)?

 

 

 

They don't.

 

 

 

Tolerance is what I was arguing for.

 

 

 

No you're not. You're arguing to teach superstitious nonsense in the school system because it "opens up debate!"

 

 

 

And saying anyone who says to present both sides is some kind of radical who is trying to corrupt children is way off base.

 

 

 

See what I wrote at the very beginning.

 

 

 

If that's their belief, let them have it; they are allowed to have have it.

 

 

 

Um, what do personal beliefs have to do with teaching false controversies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. However I think that some sort of religious education or religious history class should be available in schools, allowing people who want to to learn about both. It doesn't belong in a science classroom though, simply because it isn't science.

 

 

 

This; in fact a decent philosophy class at something like 9th grade would do wonders for public education.

 

 

 

It's exactly why idiots still deny global warming. We have people saying, "Well, there's a lot of experts who don't believe in global warming, or that it's caused by humans even if it's happening." They use the same tactics that have been used for eons with evolution.

 

 

 

Care to tell me why many estimates are saying the earth is going to cool for the next few years then? Also, since environmental science works so well why were we warned about the incoming ice age 30 years ago?

 

 

 

No you're not. You're arguing to teach superstitious nonsense in the school system because it "opens up debate!"

 

 

 

and you are trying to stop it because you hate anyone that dares to disagree with one of your positions.


awteno.jpg

Orthodoxy is unconciousness

the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.